Sunday, December 20, 2009

I basically don't want to talk about this comic. It strikes me as boring. You all can discuss it for yourselves. All I'll say is that he seems to be in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" sort of situation* and it is no more or less entertaining than any other such situation.

* note: this is not the same as a catch-22. if you think it is, you are dumb. don't make me go on a rant about this.

What I want to talk about the alt-text. Now I frequently complain that Mr. Beret is a dumb character, because none of his actions are consistent with any sort of "character" at all, in the sense that you cannot "characterize" any of his actions into any "category." (note - if you say "but his character is that he is an existentialist!" then I will kick you in the balls and Rob will punch you in the face).

ANYWAY. In one of our earliest sightings of Mr. Beret we were informed that he a) thoughts buildings that were not bakeries were, in fact, bakeries, and b) thought items that were not scones, were, in fact, scones. I thought it was dumb then and I think it's dumb now. It's particularly annoying because in latercomics, this one definable, if odd, trait was totally absent.

So you think I'd be happy to see that today's alt-text: "[Shortly thereafter, at a nearby bakery] ::CRASH:: ::RUMBLE:: ::VRRRRRR:: '... I don't know, officer. It just scooped up an entire rack of scones and drove away!'" Because it gets back to the one thing I thought we could count on with this guy. But I'm not happy (surprise!), because we all we get is: He loves scones! He has a murderous love of scones. I was kind of hoping for something that added to his character, not something that just repeated it. It's like if Homer Simpson were defined entirely by his love of donuts. It just gets super boring, really really fast. So he's also got his job, his catchphrase, his various other phrases, his friends, his hangouts, etc. You know, like an actual character.

Have you ever seen the movie Theodore Rex? I recommend it. It is delightfully bad. The point is that the main character has a noticeable love of cookies. He makes it known frequently just how much he loves cookies! I kept expecting it to somehow affect the plot - perhaps he would inadvertently stop the bad guys while simply trying to acquire some cookies across the room? But it never happened! The only purpose to him loving cookies was so that later, they could have him keep loving cookies! WHY.

It's the same problem here: Mr. Beret's love of scones serves no purpose. Why do we care? How does it affect him, or those around him? Besides being able to repeat "he loves scones! isn't that CRAZY?" over and over, what is the point?

=========

By the way, you haven't noticed this probably, but it is getting really hard to keep up with all the comments. Back in the day, I used to read and respond to them all. Now I'm lucky if I can even read them all. It sucks, because all the good ideas and all the actual funny stuff usually comes from there, and the sense of community and stuff. So - I'll try to keep up, but if I don't, that's why. heck knows i was not expecting this web-blog to turn into a goddamn internet phenomenon. Heck no.

143 comments:

Mal: I'm still laughing at that Dinosaur comic. It also makes the last few xkcd comics look even worse with the comparison.

"Asshole" is pretty true to its name. You compared the Dinosaur comic to Black Hat if he were less sadistic, but it fits Beret pretty much out of the box. His shenanigans should be cheeky and fun, not cruel and tragic. Beret's simple cruelty isn't amusing. Black Hat, Opera Ghost, and Frankenstein's Monster were all cruel, but we are amused by BH and cry with OG and FM because their cruelty isn't simple.

"Revolutionary" is just Randall on a soap box. Tell it from the philosopher's perspective (alt-text "Just ask George Clinton", alternative "Ha! Ha! The only good meme is an old meme!"). I think it's better to set up the main character for a fall than to insert yourself into the work to preach to the choir about those you are burning in effigy.

"Abstraction" would have been ok (if a bit tired) if he'd left off the god bit or if it weren't sandwiched between the other two comics. As it is, the line comes off as serious and self-important. If a character is self-important we'll laugh at him, so what should we do if the author is self-important?

The Dinosaur comic was funny because it was both whimsical and self-deprecating, not mean or holier-than-thou. Last week's xkcd comics felt like bad fan fiction.

Interestingly enough, if Rand gave existentialism a glance, she'd probably dismiss it.And he was the existentialist counterpart to a generic stick man's nihilism for his first 3 or 4 appearances, at least one of which was hundreds of comics before we saw him mention bakeries.

I will not complain about your complains, Carl. I just feel that, no matter what Randall does, you won't like it. I mean, if he develops his characters, you'll complain his characteres are acting inconsistently (is that a word? well, you get the idea). I he doesn't, then his characters are shallow and repetitive.

Why don't you write a little about what Randall should do to make xkcd good again, instead of just ranting about every single comic he draws?

It occurs to me that perhaps the scone obsession may be linked to the existentialism, with the popular assumption of existentialists as 'guys who sit around in cafés all day talking bout existential things.' Wherein they would presumably eat scones and other baked good along with their coffee or tea.

This is, of course, a stupid and incorrect portrait of existentialist philosophers, so it makes sense that Randall Munroe would think it.

I don't think the bowling balls do that in the end run, Rob. Think about the celery sticks. They never had a banana dariquiri and neither should Randall Monroe. In reference to the walrus though, I haven't noticed.

So, dillema, and then violent retaliation, presented in a way that doesn't really make seeing the comic any funnier than a briefest description of its themes. How bland.-also-I certainly think of Roark when I think of existentialism, I was just saying Rand probably dismissed(or would dismissed, if she never came across them) those philosophers work for some sillybuns reason.

New comic is, um, not very funny, I don't think. "Haha, technology takes longer to develop than we think. Researchers can be naive about business and marketing. Haha."

It doesn't help that the translation chart tends to be a pretty sterile way to do humor, I think.

@Some Anon Guy:

Yes, indeed, Randall is damned if he does develop his characters and damned if he doesn't! Which is to say, he's damned if he decides to "develop" his characters by having them act inconsistently, without actually establishing any character traits, and he's also damned if he decides to leave his characters as wholly blank mouthpieces for his own stupid viewpoints. If those are his only options, he is indeed damned.

"Which is to say, he's damned if he decides to "develop" his characters by having them act inconsistently, without actually establishing any character traits, and he's also damned if he decides to leave his characters as wholly blank mouthpieces for his own stupid viewpoints. If those are his only options, he is indeed damned."

What in the hell is the point of making a character distinguishable, (in a manner that reoccurs in multiple comics and then referenced to in alt-text), and basically take no attempt to make it a real character.

Its more of an example of about how XKCD lacks the ability to work well within its chosen medium. If you're restricted to stick figures and you feel the need to distinguish a particular person over and over in the same way, you figure you'd do it correctly instead of randomly. In this way, its just a really dumb version of the math Randall uses for his comic. Reference + Getting it = Funny! "Oh! The alt-text makes a bakery reference. I get it! Lolololol."

Regarding the beret guy "character", Person #1's post in the previous thread revealed that Randall bases the character on a real person (!!!), and beret guy is "about as inconsistent as the person he's based on" (!!!!). Two possibilities were raised: the person is someone Randall knows, or it's himself. Well, let's see:1) If the person is someone else, then Randall doesn't know that person too well to understand his actions, labels him as "inconsistent" and bases a completely horrid character on him, which means not only he lacks skills in interacting with people and understanding them, but also lacks skills in writing (which is already obvious).2) If the person is himself, then he's too proud to be "quirky" and "unusual" and wants to show himself off as a funny guy who is quirky and therefore way better than those boring normal folks -- which is a pathetic form of attention whoring.

Come on! How can a real person be "inconsistent"? Either that person has a severe mental condition, or he is being deliberately and purposefully deceiving just to confuse people. Either with wild mood swings, people have their own inner logic, and they just won't break it randomly. If you want to do a character like that, fine, but it takes skill to make that believable and comedic. Randall lacks skill to do either.

But who cares? Certainly not the fans! Getting the references and running gags is enough for SHEER COMEDIC GOLD!!!

PS: the newest comic is so dull and unentertaining that it almost sent me into a coma.

New comic: hellishly boring. Previous comic: crap. Everything has pretty much been said.

What particularly annoyed me about 677 though was how godawful the alt-text looks. The sound effects are grating, why the fuck is the first part in square brackets, and why the hell are there double colons around the sound effects?

What kind of bullshit punctuation did Randall learn in school? And why is it that language seems to be his weakest point, despite claiming that his comic is about language?

Carl, if someone hates xkcd, they will hate xkcd even more with every comic. If someone loves it, then etc.

The second anon above me: I am not defending Randall. His art is pretty bad. But,

You are an idiot. It's a wonder why everyone else got the 'joke' and what beret guy was doing but not you. In the panel after the confusing parts, he has a new car! I wonder why? Maybe... he got a new car. WHY WOULD HE GIVE HIS CAR TO THE COMPLAINING MAN? How would that explain the rows and rows of cars in the background?Dear Anonymous, if you need references then you really don't know shit.

How about an Overhead Loader/Digger instead? The comic shows him to possess one already.

I should think you folks round these parts could have been a tad wittier when devising a euphemism for the Cuddleboys and Fanfish of the comic that dare not speak its name.“Cuddleghoti” seems to me to be a better, stronger and more existential term of endearment - especially for those of the Irish persuasion. (Not Northern Ireland, mind you, but Real Ireland.)

On the plus side for Monday's comic, there's no artwork to criticize, so at least we don't have to deal with "The art doesn't matter, stop mentioning it!"

A few people on the forums seem to be praising the last line about the hovercar but I don't see why. How is that funny? If someone actually HAD a hovercar, then wouldn't everyone else see it and go "Wow look at that guy's hovercar, where can I get one?"

So even if someone did have a hovercar that means they could never use it, and if they could never use it what would be the point of having one? You can't even say bragging rights because they wouldn't be able to tell anyone about it. Gah, stupid, stupid, stupid...

I like XKCD a lot - I know I'm being a little bit "out there" saying that, but fuck it, I really, absolutely fucking well love XKCD. Except for when he uses the word "Fibonacci" which albeit sounding a tad like "infibulate", which I like, is a vulgar and abject word. It is the type of word that one normally finds written, but guess what? I inveigh of it being put in print as well because it looks so very fucking gay, since it possesses the double consonant ‘CC’ and let's face it, there are no acceptable words, except possibly "Bocce", which include a double ‘CC’.

The sesquipedalia of the horrid word "FibonacciSequence" makes it a very attractive lexeme for utter cunts to use. There are a small number of cuntbutlers in the world who like to converse as if they were reading aloud, rather than, say, thinking about what they want to say and then actually saying it. These folks pause a lot when they are speaking, and screw up their faces, swishing their heads from side to side and forming their mouths like a slow leaking blow-up sex doll, all to give an impression that they possess gravitas and learning. I really fucking hate people who prate as if they were reading a script - no one is ever fooled into thinking them educated or erudite or articulate they just sound like dickheads. And you folks who would say "somewhat" instead of the more common "a bit" or "a tad" or "slightly", you can fuck off and die as well.

bonoAye the troubles and the halcyon days of my youth. I would not have expected an inmate of the Revolted Colonies to have known of the troubles much less that Ireland is actually two countries. You must be from o'er the pond.

I like XKCD. I also like this blog. How can I possibly like both, you ask? Because Carl's irrational hatred of a simple webcomic is so deeply entrenched that he remembers the past comic better than I do, and will remind his readers of them, presumably to make some point about how they and / or the current comic suck, but it gives me added humor and back story. I had all but forgottan about Mr. Beret's back story, and so thought initally that the alt-text was just some wacky zaniness, but now I can appreciate it all the more.

So thank you, Carl! Thank you for your hatred-driven super-memory, and your tireless venting of your spleen all over the interblags!

Unrealistic dialogue rears its ugly head again. Here's a story about me reading this comic:

I saw the title "Asshole" and thought, "okay this is about an asshole". A reasonable conclusion, I think.

Then I read the first panel, and run into my problem. "Oh no! Am I an asshole? I hope not!" does not sound like something someone would say. Actually, that's not true. It sounds exactly like something you'd say if you were being a sarcastic asshole. One panel in, and I'm acting under the presumption that the beret guy is actually being an asshole.

I then read panels 2 and 3 and am forced to reread panel 1 when I realise that they make NO SENSE AT ALL.

So yeah either Randy fucked up or I'm an idiot. Note: No-one else seemed to have this problem so I'm perfectly willing to accept the latter.

"I inveigh of it being put in print as well because it looks so very fucking gay, since it possesses the double consonant ‘CC’ and let's face it, there are no acceptable words, except possibly "Bocce", which include a double ‘CC’."

Much as everyone loves to mess with nihilists (probably to get revenge for the fact that Nietzsche broke their minds, and broke their minds GOOD), none of the other three are particularly interesting.

Agony of choice? Hmmm... not really. Maybe if Randall had done something like this: http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/9496/assholecopy.png

But he didn't, so no. I didn't see a spot of Nausea in sight, either. Or objectification of the self. Or liberation from nothingness. Or a bourgeous delusion. Or...

I might read too much Sartre, but the point stands nonetheless. If you'd read a couple of paragraphs about 'existentialism' or seen the Fox News report on it, you might vomit up this trite, pale imitation of a complex philosophical system, personified as Beret Man. Beret Man just seems to have become a cliché leftist puppet; is Randall working for Murdoch now?

Carl,I think your blog sucks. I didn't read this latest post because I can hardly be bothered anymore. However, I hate it when people use Catch-22 in the wrong context. It's right up there with "ironic", except I think people who misuse Catch-22 think they're more clever than people who misuse "ironic". Anyway, I just thought you should know these things.

678 would be better if the last translation stayed where it is while the order of the rest were reversed. First, this creates a consistent narrative where we can track the technology from beginning to end.

25+: Dangles the carrot in front of our face10: Tells us the carrot is delicious5: Teases us into making a desperate grasp for the carrotQ4: Snatches the carrot away just before we reach itApps: Further subverts our hopes by telling us they never intended to give us the carrot in the first place

Second, it fixes the problem that it starts and ends with related gags. Q4 and Apps are subversions while 25+ and 10 are done straight and 5 is an unrelated throw away cheap shot. Starting with a subversion creates the expectation that every entry will be a humorous subversion. Since we don't get another subversion till the end, we're left wondering how the middle entries are funny, conclude that they aren't, so the list, as a whole, isn't funny. Starting straight creates the expectation that the list will be done straight, which can then be subverted for laughs.

The reordering also helps 5 look like less of a jab at the ivory tower stereotype. It could be helped further by taking out the words "interesting" (which only serve to set up the ivory tower for a fall) and "which is easy" or "just business, which is" ("just" and "easy" get the same idea across, don't beat the reader over the head with it). Removing the cheap shot helps to focus the joke. The throw away gag isn't worth distracting from the main joke.

Promenade across the floor. Sashay right on out the door. Out the door and into the glade and everybody promenade. Step right up you're doing fine. I'll pull your beard you'll pull mine. Yank it again like you did before. Break it up with a tug of war. Now into the brook and fish for the trout. Dive right in and splash about. Trout! Trout! Pretty little trout! One more splash and come right out. Shake like a hound-dog. Shake again. Wallow around in the old pig pen. Wallow some more. Y'all know how. Roll around like an old fat sow. Alamand left with your right hand. Follow through with a great left band. Now lead your partner the dirty old thing. Follow through with an elbow swing. Grab a fence post. Hold it tight. Womp your partner with all your might. Hit him in the shin. Hit him in the head. Hit him again. The critter ain't dead. Womp him low and womp him high. Stick your finger in his eye. Pretty little ring. Pretty little sound. Bang your heads against the ground. Promenade all around the room. Promenade like a bride and groom. Open up the door and step right in. Close the door and into a spin. Whirl! Whirl! Twist and twirl! Jump all around like a flying squirrel. Now don't you fuss and don't you swear. Just come right out and form a square. Now right hand over and left hand under. Both join hands and run like thunder. Over the hill and over the dale. Duck your head and lift your tail. Don't you stray and don't you roam. Turn to your partner. Promenade home. Corn in the cornfield. Wheat in the sack. Turn to your partner. Promenade back. And now you're home. Bow to your partner. Bow to the gent across the hall. And that is all!

Now this looks like a job for me So everybody, just follow me Cause we need a little, controversy Cause it feels so empty, without me I said this looks like a job for me So everybody, just follow me Cause we need a little, controversy Cause it feels so empty, without me

"[a] vitriolic and bitter collection of unwarranted nastiness about a silly and harmless comic."

"What I get from that is that he's saying that he can't help if the character appears inconsistent, because he's based on a real person."

Of course he can help it! He can LEARN HOW TO WRITE! Ahh, but maybe that wouldn't cut it for him, because he's this oh-so-unassuming and modest guy who draws stick figures, and he thinks learning how to write properly would make him a pretentious, snobby asshole who things he's better than everyone.

Fact is, the strip doesn't need beret guy in order to work. He just used beret guy because he's recognisable, and it's easy to have a alt text joke based on a "character trait" like that.

P.S.: Would it be preposterous if I said ALTF is doing us an actual service? The cuddlefishes who think *WE* are complete losers for spending about 15 minutes of our days here posting criticism would be blown away by someone who spends at least 15 minutes of his days here posting complete shit and mixing up Italian with French.

He didn't want to read it, because it would suck. But he had to read it, to know that it mentioned catch 22! But if he knew that it made a good point about catch 22, then the post wouldn't suck, and he wouldn't have to read it. or something? IT IS A CATCH 22.

Carl,I think your blog sucks. I only read this latest post but I'll say differently for bonus credibility. However, I hate it when people use Catch-22 in the wrong context. It's right up there with "ironic", except I think people who misuse Catch-22 think they're more clever than people who misuse "ironic". Anyway, I just thought you should know these things.

"I read the part in italics and then read the part before it. It's a habit I'm trying to break. Dipshit."

So now you've moved on from "I don't even read the posts" to "I read part of the post and am reading the comments, and care enough to respond to them." Also note how you can "hardly" be bothered anymore, rather than not bothered anymore at all.

Really, just admit that you read it already, because you're on a slippery slope towards that inevitability anyway.

For the record, until very recently, I read the posts on this blog. As of late, they've become very boring, essentially repeating the joke(if you believe there is one) in a mocking tone*. I don't feel that is really a critique. I still check the blog out of habit. I spotted an italicized Catch-22(I'm drawn to italics, as we all are), and was intrigued. So, I read the first few sentences until I arrived at the asterisk. I hardly feel that constitutes reading the post.

I haven't read any comments except the ones after my comment(to see if people agreed/disagreed with me). However, if I did wish to read the comments it would be to see how much of this community agrees with Carl, how much disagrees, and how many people posit the same questions that are answered in the faq for the millionth time.

* - oddly enough, this post, which I didn't read(in its entirety), seems too long to simply be mocking, but I'll probably never know for sure.

Keep explaining yourself, and keep repeating that you didn't read the post, because that in no way sounds like you're feeling caught out, and are desperately trying to convince people otherwise.

However, if I did wish to read the comments it would be to see how much of this community agrees with Carl, how much disagrees, and how many people posit the same questions that are answered in the faq for the millionth time.

And now you're adding a disclaimer for when people catch you talking about what is going on in the comments section despite claiming not to have read the comments. Nice going!

It seems like Carl isn't even trying anymore. If he doesn't just say "eh screw this, comic sucks" and leaves it at that, he basically keeps repeating what he said thousands of times before.

Basically, Carl is behaving suspiciously Randall-like.

Note that it's only Carl's posts that seem stale at this point. I enjoyed the Bob Dole update, I enjoyed 'John's' update, I enjoyed the update that editted XKCD with a red pen. Carl's posts at this point just read like someone doing a job he hates.

Carl, I think it's time to go on some soul-searching journey and climb a mountain or some shit like that. You lost your fire, go find it again.

There are lot's of Carl's Blog Sucks guys. Carl seems to poke at the little things now, not anything that is actually a problem. It feels a lot like he's repeating "this sucks 'cause I don't like it" and not actually bringing up interesting points.

Also, to everyone who doesn't get the comic because of panels 2 and 4 or any of the others: the comic is clear; you're just ignorant.

This comic tells a very poor joke, very badly. The foundation of this comic is a reference that most of Randall's "target audience" (what a loathsome phrase!) will immediately glom onto--something from their childhood, the 1980s, or XKCD itself. If the comic is particularly repulsive today, it appeals not to their shared childhood, but to their shared condescension, and is nothing but a blatant appeal to the imagined superiority of Randall's fans. These things are all, generally speaking, stupid foundations for jokes, although it's possible to do referential humor well. Randall, however, has not done this well. He has not couched his references in character dialogue, he has not surrounded them with clever humor, he has not combined references in interesting and unexpected ways, he has not really done anything but drop a reference dead on arrival into our laps. Perhaps, if we're lucky today, he has graced us with multiple references. But without interesting characters, or the artistic ability to set an interesting scene, or the talent with dialogue to distract us from the shamefully pathetic core, Randall is left with only a bland reference, surrounded by the trappings of his own incompetence.

Unless today's comic is not referential humor, but a "romantic" comic. I think we've had enough attempts to lovingly enter the head of the Nice GuyTM. Randall may not be overtly sympathetic to the losers whose grotesque attempts at relationship he depicts, but he certainly doesn't condemn them. If he does, it's reluctantly, the condemnation of an author who deeply wishes his characters could have found a better happiness. It's the condemnation Douglas Adams had for Arthur Dent--in the later books, when he tried to make Dent happy and give him good things in life, not in the earlier books when he viciously savaged Dent and held him up clearly and unmistakably as an object of ridicule and loathing. It's a cringing contempt, always reserved with the hope that one day he won't need to be contemptful of his character. The fact that this character seems to be the only romance Randall is capable of expressing, beyond the teenager's "Oh my gosh isn't love SO GREAT I am shitting rainbows and floating on moonbeams SO HAPPY FOREVER", is queasy-making too.

I think that boilerplate could reasonably apply to more or less every comic that's come out lately. So Carl takes a look at some of the more granular failings of XKCD.

That's exactly what needs to be avoided. Yes, that can describe many of the comics, but going in with that mindset destroys the objectivity of the criticism, which makes it weak. Carl's latest posts are boilerplate enough as it is.

That's exactly what needs to be avoided. Yes, that can describe many of the comics, but going in with that mindset destroys the objectivity of the criticism, which makes it weak. Carl's latest posts are boilerplate enough as it is.

Obviously, criticism is subjective, but you can attempt to be objective about it. Saying something along the lines of "this is a weak setup for a joke because this character comes along and says something completely out of context just to give the other character the chance to start the joke" is a valid criticism, if it can reasonably be assumed that it is out of context. But something like "no one would ever say that!", when people might actually talk in that way, is not. Perhaps objectivity isn't the correct word, maybe I should say validity. Anyway, you can't criticize someone without properly defending it and be taken seriously. And I believe Carl wishes to be taken seriously. According to the faq, he wishes to enlighten Randall to his downslide.

It is valid, usually, I'll give you that. But it isn't always valid(you, yourself, said "pretty much"). And going in with that attitude, using it as a boilerplate, would bias Carl's opinion. Since I believe Carl wishes to be taken seriously, I would think he wouldn't want to be biased.

P.S.: Would it be preposterous if I said ALTF is doing us an actual service? The cuddlefishes who think *WE* are complete losers for spending about 15 minutes of our days here posting criticism would be blown away by someone who spends at least 15 minutes of his days here posting complete shit and mixing up Italian with French.

It's about time someone realised I was doing a favour for y'all. And the truly gifted would say 'cuddleghoti' by the way. Mixing up Italian and French? The two most prominent Romance (as in Latin based, not Harlequin based) languages? Like the first Holy Roman Emperor said; "I speak Spanish to my lovers, French to my peers, Latin to my priest and German to my horse." Oh mon amour Fernie, non parli merda. Remember what Gaius Germanicus Caesar (AKA Caligula) said: "Oderint Dum Metuant"

Female Moth just said:

"...WHAT objectivity of the criticism? Fuck you, shithead...."

Well said!A most enlightening riposte if ever I heard one. Query? Do you actually eat with that same mouth?

Anonymous 10:54You waste your white-flowery breath, the scions of this blog-wank circle are a tad thick. Which surprises me as some seem to be particularly bright - perhaps the bright ones just don't try hard enough.Oh and there is no "Z" in the word criticise. And I very much doubt this Carl person wishes to be taken seriously. I reckion he is one of the few here 'bouts that might even 'get' my dross - he and that aloria guy.

It is valid, usually, I'll give you that. But it isn't always valid(you, yourself, said "pretty much"). And going in with that attitude, using it as a boilerplate, would bias Carl's opinion. Since I believe Carl wishes to be taken seriously, I would think he wouldn't want to be biased.

I really think your complaint is stupid. It's problematic to acknowledge that XKCD is routinely shitty and can almost always be characterized by the same derogatory text because that might bias me? Am I supposed to create a blank slate for myself every time I look at XKCD? That's stupid, you're stupid for suggesting it.

Yes, if you want your criticism to be taken seriously. It sucks, I know(I'm serious. I understand the tendency). Of course, I was only speaking of Carl, not you.

Sorry, that's a stupid way to view art. Nobody is going to view XKCD except in the context of every other XKCD he's read, and tons more things besides. Trying to view each update as a discrete, unconnected event is a futile and worthless endeavor, and that makes criticism FAR less relevant than indulging in a (very justified) predisposition to dislike it.

Carl,Why do you not also post your criticisms on the xkcd threads? If you do, sorry for asking. But, it seems to me that if you wanted to tackle the problem head-on, that would be the place to do it. I mean, it would only require copy and paste. Then you'd also have the pertinent discussion here. Have you done this in the past? If so, why did you stop? Is this already answered in the faq? As much as I talk about it, I haven't read it in a while. I hope this doesn't come off as patronizing, I didn't mean it to.

"Oh and there is no "Z" in the word criticise. And I very much doubt this Carl person wishes to be taken seriously. I reckion he is one of the few here 'bouts that might even 'get' my dross - he and that aloria guy."

No, it's not a stupid way to view art. People view them in that way, yes, but you can't criticize them in that way*. You are speaking of ad hominem attacks. Just because someone is an idiot, it doesn't mean that they can't come up with a good idea. You gotta criticize the idea, not the person. It's difficult, I know. It's not in our nature.

Judging, criticizing, every xkcd in the context of xkcd, as you have endorsed, means that Randall could create a clever comic and it could be deemed unclever based on previous comics. THAT is stupid.

Just because someone is an idiot, it doesn't mean that they can't come up with a good idea. You gotta criticize the idea, not the person. It's difficult, I know. It's not in our nature.

I'm not...I'm not saying we criticize Randall personally. Why do you think I'm making ad hominem attacks? I'm saying that it's perfectly reasonable to criticize every XKCD with respect to every other XKCD and all the other relevant context. Anything else would be arbitrary and sterile.

You say it's difficult and not in our nature, but why SHOULD we do it?

Judging, criticizing, every xkcd in the context of xkcd, as you have endorsed, means that Randall could create a clever comic and it could be deemed unclever based on previous comics. THAT is stupid.

That's not stupid at all. A comic that is clever in isolation can easily be understood to be unoriginal, derivative, and downright stupid when you consider the rest of its context. See that Google Maps comic that seemed decent until it turned out that it was a wholesale ripoff of Penny Arcade. Why is judging art in terms of its own context so alien to you?

Until you can stop conflating "judging XKCD in terms of its artistic context" and "judging XKCD in terms of Randall" and "judging XKCD by deciding to have a bias and refusing to interact with the art in any other way", I'm just not going to respond. There's no point in addressing your bizarre straw men.

I think you'll find that all but the inmates in the Revolted Colonies use the Queen's English where the "S" is predominant. Mind, the inexorable march of the juggernaut of American Misspelling Conventions is taking over the English speaking world. Even the wankers at the BBC and ABC(Australia) are using Yankee-isms.Canada long ago succumbed to the disease.

Now, seeing as you are indeed thick, I will give you a witty retort to the above.

Sorry, there are things that can be taken into consideration. One can't post/produce the same work over and over again and have it be "great" just because the first one was great. However, if Thomas Kinkade produced 1000 bland, snowy landscapes, and then produced the Mona Lisa(if you think that is "great"), you can't discount it based on his previous bland efforts. So, your boilerplate idea is bad. Yes, several(that's an understatement) xkcd comics have been bad, but Carl(if he wishes to be taken seriously) must adress each comic with equal "respect", if he wishes to be taken seriously.

Robbie!Nice to see you. Howya bin? Incidentally, how’s that morals charge going? I was just thinking the other day if you could get your hands on the court transcripts you could add an ‘H’ so that the charge would then read: ‘phaedophile’. Now you could then plead guilty with an explanation saying: “Yes I am a phaedophile, but we only engaged in Platonic dialogue”.

That was a joke for our Philosophy friends.

How many Freudians does it take to change a lightbulb?Two.One to hold the lightbulb and one to hold my penis, no I mean my mother, no I mean the ladder.

That was a joke for our Psych friends.

Now what's all this hoopla about the new European Large Hadrian Collider? I've seen many statues of Antinous and he has only a mediocre endowment.

That was a joke for the Quantum Particle people who might also have a minor in Ancient Roman history and Gay Studies.

Sorry, there are things that can be taken into consideration. One can't post/produce the same work over and over again and have it be "great" just because the first one was great. However, if Thomas Kinkade produced 1000 bland, snowy landscapes, and then produced the Mona Lisa(if you think that is "great"), you can't discount it based on his previous bland efforts. So, your boilerplate idea is bad. Yes, several(that's an understatement) xkcd comics have been bad, but Carl(if he wishes to be taken seriously) must adress each comic with equal "respect", if he wishes to be taken seriously.

You know, it's not like the boilerplate is mandatory. If, by some fucking random stroke of luck, Randall managed to create an incredibly good comic, the boilerplate wouldn't be used because it wouldn't apply. We'd be discussing allegations of plagiarism instead.

That doesn't mean anything in Italian anyways. Don't try to be a smartass with languages by using google translator. Especially when Wikipedia has such a good page on Italian profanities:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_profanity

Uh, sure! That is why I am asking why people would want to be taken seriously on the internet and linking to a Wikipedia article about boilerplates because some cuddlefish is being smug and wrong about a definition. It has everything to do with Carl, and nothing to do with the fact that I'm a dick.

Robbie!Isn’t he magnificent when he is all riled up? He is indeed in fine form. I must add a caveat to my latter statement though. He is in fine form for someone who has yet to discover the efficacy of subsuming his ego to his intellect when he engages in bilious rhetoric. He is young though – and there is still much time.Innit

I know, right? We used to have trolls with style. Trolls with class. Trolls with panache. Those were good days. This one reminds me of that kid that thought he was being the pinnacle of insulting by using big words incorrectly--inter alia, he called me a "truculent mountebank," which is probably the best thing ever. It's a sad case all around.

I mean, word salads are pretty low on the faux-intellectual scale, given that for all its complex diction, The Mars Volta lyrics are still simply made by an ouija board. You should at least go up to the William Monty Hughes level, a Ignatius Reilly combination of over-education, slovenliness and outdated ideas.

Please, you flatter me. If only your opinions had any meaning! However, they do not. For you are a commentator on this "blag" (quotation marks are, of course, intentional as this is not so much a blag as a bileful refuge for the eternally reviled) other than me.

This is what an utter idiot would say. I know because you just said it.Ahem: http://justgiblets.com/wp-content/uploads/old/feel_burn.jpg

As a matter of fact, that is simply a common misconception concerning Latin held by the Unwashed Masses. "Peni" is perfectly correct and amicable whereas "penii" is an ABOMINATION. Against grammar and my infinite intelligence. I shall not stand for it.You are wrong whilst I am right!

I found the following in the unpublished archives of none other than our beloved:

William "The Ergot" Monty Hughes

Laa Laa, the yellow teletubby gives me the fucking horn. And you can tell she fucking loves it too.Can you imagine waking up next to that every morning? You would not be able to keep your hands off her. Can you imagine slapping her big, round, yellow arse as you fucked her from behind, using the other hand to pull that antenna thing on the top of her head?

'Eh oh!' she would scream in delight as you pounded her arsehole (assuming she has one).

Imagine those big, brown eyes gazing up at you as she knelt down to suck your cock. Imagine shooting your load over her inexpressive, plastic face.Fucking hell that teletubby gives me the horn.

I think she might have a thing for Dipsy Wipsy though, the little slut.

Fernie: I thought you wanted to translate "don't talk shit", which isn't something you say in Italian. A correct way to say that would be "non dire stronzate". Also, if you were referring directly to Aquarians, you used the wrong verb - parlare can't be used in a transitive way. You only speak OF something (parlare DI qualcosa), you dont speak SOMETHING (parlare qualcosa). And "parlare di merda" just means "talking about shit" in a very literal sense.

Now, Aquarians points out it might be used in some local dialect, such as Neapolitan. That might be, as Italian dialects often bear little resemblance to the language, and they are keen to completely disregard grammar and syntactics. I've never heard it in my life, but I'm from the north, and our dialects belong to an entirely different family.

Most people use Catch-22 to mean something along the lines of a difficult situation or one where any outcome will be bad, which is incorrect. In the book, its basically a rule that says the enitity enforcing a rule can do whatever it wants because the rule says so, but it doesn't have to show you the rule to prove it. It isn't actually even known if Catch-22 exists, because its existence doesn't have to be shown. It's all very circular and contradictory. An example would be if NO ONE would hire you for a job until you had experience. How would you then ever get the experience?

To get exempt from flying missions from the airforce, you have to be found to be insane. Anyone who has willingly flown the missions in the past would be considered insane because of how crazily denagerous they are. However, to be declared insane, you have to ask for the psychiatrist to evaluate you. However, asking for an evaluation is a sign of sanity, as only a sane man would want to get out flying the missions. So to be declared insane, you have to ask to be evaluated, but asking to be evaluated rules out being found insane, so you can't get out. It's a circular, unsolveable logical puzzle, not simply a situation of being 'between a rock and hard place' or 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'. In any case, in this comic, gas guzzling SUV and supposedly 'holier than thou' hybrid were hardly the only two transport options available to Mr Beret.

What the hell is this?

Welcome. This is a website called XKCD SUCKS which is about the webcomic xkcd and why we think it sucks. My name is Carl and I used to write about it all the time, then I stopped because I went insane, and now other people write about it all the time. I forget their names. The posts still seem to be coming regularly, but many of the structural elements - like all the stuff in this lefthand pane - are a bit outdated. What can I say? Insane, etc.

I started this site because it had been clear to me for a while that xkcd is no longer a great webcomic (though it once was). Alas, many of its fans are too caught up in the faux-nerd culture that xkcd is a part of, and can't bring themselves to admit that the comic, at this point, is terrible. While I still like a new comic on occasion, I feel that more and more of them need the Iron Finger of Mockery knowingly pointed at them. This used to be called "XKCD: Overrated", but then it fell from just being overrated to being just horrible. Thus, xkcd sucks.

Here is a comic about me that Ann made. It is my favorite thing in the world.

Frequently Asked Questions

Divided into two convenient categories, based on whether you think this website

Rob's Rants

When he's not flipping a shit over prescriptivist and descriptivist uses of language, xkcdsucks' very own Rob likes writing long blocks of text about specific subjects. Here are some of his excellent refutations of common responses to this site. Think of them as a sort of in-depth FAQ, for people inclined to disagree with this site.